Without entering whether the currently planned Trinity Site development is desirable or not — it’s already been a lengthy and probably continuing slog — I do object to George Chandler’s divisions of opinions in his op- ed of Jan. 3.
Classifying opinion holders as “nattering nabobs of negativity” as opposed to “positive visionaries” (does he consider himself one of those?) is about as useful a dividing opinion holder as “fair representatives of the community” versus “the opinioned who think they know better.”
That may be just as, if not, more accurate. But this kind of labeling just deepens a divide on a number of issues here.
We are far better served when folks state their views and their reasons without getting cutesy about those they disagree with.